M. Hedayat and Associates, P.C. Hero Banner

Articles Tagged with Equitable Estoppel

Published on:

Seal_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_Illinois

Seymour vs. Collins, 2015 IL 118432

Supreme Court of Illinois, September 24, 2015

In Seymour the Illinois Supreme Court addresses whether action, or inaction, in connection with a Federal case such as a Bankruptcy, should give rise to estoppel in connection with a State cause such as personal injury. The Answer is something of a surprise.

Facts

In 2008 the Seymours filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petition. 2 years into their Plan or Reorganization, they filed a personal injury action based on a 2010 automobile accident. In 2010 they successfully moved to modify their Plan; reducing their monthly payments because Mr. Seymour was unable to work due to the accident and the couple’s sole source of income was now workers’ compensation.

Procedural Background

Despite having moved to modify their Plan, the Seymours never officially apprised the Bankruptcy Court that their circumstances changed; nor did they amend their Bankruptcy Schedules. On that basis, the Defendants in the State Court case were able to secure summary judgment using an estoppel argument. The notion was that since the Debtors failed to advise the Bankruptcy Court of their case, they should not be permitted to proceed in State Court Continue reading

Published on:

Many small business owners find comfort and success capitalizing on a franchise. Franchisors use Non-Compete (“NCA”) and Non-Disclosure (“NDA”) clauses as well as mandatory arbitration provisions to protect themselves. But should such a provision be effective against a non-signing spouse? That was the question before the Appellate Court in the recent 7th Circuit case of Everett vs. Paul Davis Restoration. The short answer? Yes, it is.

The Family Business

Davis Restoration entered into a Franchise Agreement with Matthew Everett, husband of Plaintiff Renee, as the “principal owner” of Franchisee EA Green Bay. Sometime after signing as the sole owner of EA, Matthew transferred 50% of the company to his wife despite not securing permission from the Franchisor beforehand. Eventually, the Franchise Agreement was terminated and the 2-year non-compete provision took effect. Matthew then transferred the remaining 45% of EA to his wife, who continued to operate it under the name “Building Werks” from the same location with the same customers and employees. Moreover, the Franchisor contended, Building Werks continued to capitalize on its good will and reputation.

Featured In